Good evening, everybody.

Welcome to the June twenty-third, twenty twenty-six meeting of the zoning board of appeals.

Um, I believe we have one case on our agenda for tonight, but before we do uh get started, we have um uh couple of uh housekeeping matters to take care of, and uh then we'll get straight away to the cases.

Um for those following along on your agenda, uh it's item number one, uh call to order and any announcements, and we have no announcements for tonight.

Item number two is general public comment uh related to zoning in the city of Frederick.

Uh, it has happened twice, I think, in the last twenty-three years, but I do not see anybody waving their hand uh to give us their opinions on uh zoning laws in general.

Uh and that brings us to item number three, which is review and approval of the May twenty-sixth, twenty twenty-six meeting minutes.

Members of the board, you have those minutes before you, and I will entertain a motion.

Mr.

Speaker, Bob Susan, I make a motion that we accept the minutes as written.

We have a motion from Mr.

Sisson to accept the minutes as written.

Do we have a second?

Second for Mr.

Hicks.

Do we have any discussion of the motion?

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstained?

Seeing none, the meeting minutes are approved as written.

Um brings us to item number four, swearing of uh swearing in of witnesses.

If you are planning on speaking before the board of resonating appeals tonight, if you could please raise your right hand for me.

You solemnly swear or affirm the responses given and statements made in this hearing before the zoning board of appeals will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

If so, answer I do.

Thank you all very much.

Brings us to item number five, continuances.

We have no continuances.

Item number six is old business.

We have no old business before the board.

And that brings us to item number seven, new business.

Uh, we have one case on the agenda for this evening, case CBA two six-one V as in Victor, a variance at three one zero aviation way.

Um I believe Mitch McKeith, you have the staff report for us.

Yes.

The Frederick Municipal Airport was conditionally approved for a final site plan under case PC 26-34 FSI on June 8th of this year to construct construct eight hangar buildings totaling 233,231 square feet and approximately a 1200 square foot club house.

Before construction of the hangars can begin, the airport must comply with the Maryland Aviation Administration, Comar 11.03.05, which limits the height of proposed airplaning hangar to 23 feet.

The proposed height is 16 of feet above the allowable height, creating a 39-foot obstruction into the transitional surface.

This request is unique in that the applicant is not asking for variance to regulations in Articles 4 and 8 of the land management code related to density, bulk or area.

Instead, the request is to the provisions of Comar in accordance with Section 0.06 of that statute with auth which authorizes a local political subdivision to grant variances in accordance with local procedures for such, provided that the variance does not endanger public health, safety, and welfare.

The land management code allows the board the zoning board of appeals to grant variances to certain provisions or requirements of the code when all of the conditions set forth in Section 313 C are met.

Condition one is that the variance is not in is not contrary to the public interest.

The applicant states that the variance requested is limited only to the Maryland Aviation Administration related to obstructions to air navigation.

The FAA has determined that there is no hazard to air navigation for building up to 39 feet in height.

The site exceeds the state statute by 16 feet and would require variance.

The airport management has determined that the 16 feet impact will have no impact on aircraft operations or safety to the public.

Staff concurs that the request is not contrary to the interest on the basis that the FAA has determined that there is no hazard to air navigation at the proposed height of 39 feet.

Development within the IST district is not subject to bulk and dimensional standards of Section 405 of the land management code, but is instead subject to performance standards for flexible zoning districts.

Condition two, due to exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape, topographical conditions, or other unique conditions, or the use of the property or property immediately adjacent.

The strict application of these regulations would result in unusual practical difficulties or exception to or undue hardship upon the owner of such property.

The applicant states that the purpose of allowing the hangar is to allow taller tail aircraft to be stored in the at the airport, as the door height is limited by the ridge height of the structure.

Staff agrees that this is a unique condition that caused caused undue that the unique condition that would cause undue hardship is the very use of the airport.

The transitional surface extends outward and upward at right angles from the runway center line and the runway center line extended at a slope of seven to one from the sides of the primary surface and from the sides of the approach surface.

It is essentially a three-dimensional imaginary surface extending up to and away from the runway.

The height restrictions imposed under the provisions of Comar would not have the effect of eliminating the building height to only 23 feet in such proximity to the runway, which is unique to the property.

Height restrictions coupled with the unique development of the property causes a practical difficulty that warrants the variance.

Criteria three, the variance requested is the minimum necessary to reasonably overcome the extraordinary or exceptional surfaces applicable to the property.

The applicant states that due to clear span requirements of the hangar and the slope requirements of the roof, a 39-foot ridge height would allow for a feasible design of the building while having no aviational operation.

Staff agrees that the requested height is the minimum reasonable necessary to allow the storage of aircraft.

Criteria 4.

The literal interpretation of the provision of this code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this code and would prevent the reasonable use of the property by the applicant.